Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Meanwhile back at the polls, in reply to Roger Lacey,
I wonder if Roy Morgan
and Val Morgan are related?How about Captain Morgan?
I see you're keeping with the spirit of Ian's humour.
-
Hard News: The Ides of Epsom, in reply to DexterX,
Act taking Epsom is moot, they will sit below the 5% list threshold on 0 to 1 of the party vote.
If Act manages to get 1.3% of the party vote it gets a second MP, assuming Epsom voters do as that nice John Key is instructing. So it's not in the least bit moot. If Act had got a second MP in 2011 there would have been no need for National to reach an agreement with the Maori Party. On single MPs do major incursions into civil liberties lie.
-
Legal Beagle: Q&A: John Banks' judicial review, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
That would be far to attacky.
What it would be is a gross waste of taxpayer money on a political stunt.
-
So, Banks is going to jump rather than be pushed.
ETA: We shall see in a week's time whether it's my assessment or Rich's that is correct.
-
Legal Beagle: Q&A: John Banks' judicial review, in reply to Sacha,
Scott Yorke has been pondering the connection.
I actually think it's just that our police do not see crimes against the integrity of our electoral system as truly criminal. At least, not unless they're so completely egregious that it's impossible to ignore, such as falsely registering hundreds of voters. Something as nebulous as possibly filing a fake return appears to be barely higher up the foodchain of offending than, say, littering. It's not a property crime, nobody really got hurt, where's the problem?
-
Legal Beagle: Q&A: John Banks' judicial review, in reply to BenWilson,
ending Banks’ political career is a pretty strong deterrent for what is essentially a political crime.
If he was a political high-flyer on an upwards trajectory - Darren Hughes, say - that might be a reasonable position to take. But he's not. He's a politician whose career was coming to a natural close with or without this occurrence, and it's been a pretty illustrious career in aggregate. He's a former Minister of Police, for one, which ought to be a very big strike against him for engaging in conduct that's blatantly afoul of the law.
-
Legal Beagle: Q&A: John Banks' judicial review, in reply to Paul Campbell,
forcing a cash strapped ACT to contest both a by-election and the general election in close succession might be a very smart move
But contest costs cut both ways, and the parties who might contest it seriously have their own money issues; they also don't have a plethora of wealthy benefactors who might be willing to support such a contest for the sake of defending the party's good name.
You can only force a costly contest by engaging in one yourself. Simply forcing Act to put Seymour up as a nominee doesn't cost them anything more than the filing fee. -
Sacha, if Banks resigns that still creates a vacancy that must be filled through a by-election unless the s131 resolution to call off said by-election is successful. He’s an electorate MP not one from the list, so cannot be replaced by someone from the list.
Come sentencing day, it will be so close to the general election that the Governor General could simply delay issuing the writ until he issues the writ for the general election – “Writ Day” is scheduled for 20 August, which is within the standard 21 days within which a by-election writ must be issued – and the Electoral Commission could then simply “hold” the “by-election” in conjunction with the general election a month later. The statue law is silent on such a situation, as I imagine it’s one that was never contemplated by the legislators; an MP who became incapable of holding office or died during that six-month period would be so apolitical an occurrence that the resolution to not hold a by-election would sail through unopposed. The idea of there being a writ for a by-election issued for the same window as a writ for a general election is the kind of thing that fevered academics dream up when they’re taking some amazing drugs.
The simple reality is that no matter how this plays out, there will not be a by-election for Epsom. It won’t happen. Labour and the rest will make the “political decision” to vote in support of the resolution for the simple fact that they’ll look like fucking wankers with a serious case of the numpties if they vote to force a by-election weeks before a general election. No matter how much certain commentators in here would like to dream that there’s a sufficient number of MPs in the current Parliament with a vengeful streak that’d override their political and common sense, it’s not going to happen.
Anyone who voted against such a resolution would then (quite rightly, IMO) be hammered during the remainder of the campaign for blatantly wasting taxpayer money on a political stunt. The Te Tai Tokerau by-election cost half-a-million dollars, and caused significant inconvenience to an Electoral Commission that was already occupied with the conduct of a general election. -
Legal Beagle: Q&A: John Banks' judicial review, in reply to Paul Campbell,
they’re probably not very interested in the usurpers in parliament still using their name
Probably not, but they're still associated via that name and that association is doing what remains of their reputation no good whatsoever.
-
Legal Beagle: Q&A: John Banks' judicial review, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
that he stays in Parliament is a travesty
Guilty should be a Red Card or at least a Yellow Card until the electionThat is not, however, what the law says. The law says "conviction" not "found guilty", and he's not yet convicted.
From the verdict:
"Mr Banks is a sitting Member of Parliament.
He was formerly a member of the Cabinet and a Minister of the Crown. He is a member, and was formerly the leader, of the ACT Party. Mr Banks is the only member of the ACT Party currently in Parliament and the ACT Party currently supports the Government. My verdict may have consequences at a political level."
You can't really fault the judge for not wanting to kick off the political shit-storm that would be triggered by ejection of an MP so close to a scheduled general election. It's not like he's postponed sentencing from outside the six-month window so as to force a vote on a by-election.